[lkml]   [2002]   [Dec]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Maybe a VM bug in 2.4.18-18 from RH 8.0?
On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 02:44:29AM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> Or it hurts when you can't allocate an inode because such 100M are in
> pagetables on a 64G box and you still have 60G free of highmem.

This is the zone vs. zone watermark stuff that penalizes/fails
allocations made with a given GFP mask from being satisfied by
fallback. This is largely old news wrt. various kinds of inability
to pressure those ZONE_NORMAL (maybe also ZONE_DMA) consumers.

Admission control for fallback is valuable, sure. I suspect the
question akpm raised is about memory utilization. My own issues are
centered around allocations targeted directly at ZONE_NORMAL,
which fallback prevention does not address, so the watermark patch
is not something I'm personally very concerned about.

64GB isn't getting any testing that I know of; I'd hold off until
someone's actually stood up and confessed to attempting to boot
Linux on such a beast. Or until I get some more RAM. =)

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:31    [W:0.119 / U:7.404 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site